2012年3月20日星期二

According to my theory of orgasm, I am sure male and female never can get two orgasms together. Here I make a table to show the payoffs of two people in sex game (it also applies tosame sex.). If player 1 chooses to be active and player 2 chooses to be passive during a sex game, it means player 1 controls the rhythm and power, and how and where he stimulates arbitrarily by his instinct, until he gets his own purpose – orgasm, it means 1 is his payoffs. Frankly speaking as a passive one, player 2 doesn’t get 0 as her payoffs, but -1, because she can’t only get an orgasm as her payoffs, but the sex game costs her time and body as a tool for the other and vice versa. If play 1 and play 2 both choose to be passive in sex, the result is they can’t get orgasm neither, but don’t have to pay any costs, so it is (0, 0). If both are active to each other, it is a little complicated that each one wants to control rhythm and power by their own instinct, and the result is there will be an irreconcilable conflict between them, and neither can get the own purpose, but pay the costs. So it is (-1,-1). Apparently, (-1,-1) is a strictly dominated strategy for both of them.

It looks like a strictly competitive game as zero-sum between male and female. Precisely, that’s it during orgasm mode, but what we should pay attention to is whether we can make sex game from zero-sum to win-win. In today's world, the concept of zero-sum is gradually replaced by concept of win-win, but I think the zero-sum game will never disappear. Win-win is just a cooperative game, and it needs a lot of things as preconditions.

First, you want to negotiate. Well, the problem is when you need a negotiation with the others. Only in one case: when your payoffs directly or indirectly will be affected by other people’s decision, you should ask for a negotiation. This effect can be positive or negative, but the result of your offer may be not successful. For example, in the Prisoner's Dilemma game, confession is a strictly dominate strategy for each side, but finally they both have suffered a heavier sentence, because there is no opportunity for them to have a collusion before.

When your payoffs will not be affected by anyone under any condition, you can control this game all by yourself, and no need to ask for any negotiation. When there is a conflict between your interests and other’s, theoretically you can totally ignore any interests of other people, just do whatever you want to do. There is no need to have any negotiation for you here. For example, if you are alone, you can decide whether and where you have a lunch by your own mind, and no need to care about other people eat or not.

After you ask for a negotiation to someone, it may not be able to achieve a win-win situation. It depends on the following items.

1, both sides must be intelligent and rational decision-makers. They both have a clear understanding to strengths and weaknesses of two sides, and know what the core interests and the deadline of each side. In one word, they share the same common knowledge. Of course, if the other side is psychopath, you do not need to make any effort to get win-win situation, because he can’t play cards by common sense.

2, both sides want to have a benefit exchange. The important thing is the benefit each want to exchange is not their own core interests, and of course what each gets at least more important than each pays. When the core interests contradiction between the two sides, it is impossible to achieve win-win strategy, and then the game between them just becomes a zero-sum game. For example, two gladiators on the battlefield, only a person can survive, life is their core interests, and there is nothing more important than their own life. The negotiation between them can’t be successful, because of the contradiction between their core interests. The game is you die or I die - zero-sum game. You can refute me that Jack sacrifices his life in order to save Rose in Titanic. I will tell you that because in the interest balance system of Jack, rose’s life is more central than his life. There is no denying that jack can’t give up his life for any other one on Titanic.

3, they should trust each other. When you are going to achieve win-win strategy with others, you must have to consider whether the other side you can trust or not. Win-win game is a game which is designed in a way that all participants can profit from it, but not at the same time. In many cases, the payoffs are sequential in a game, can’t happen simultaneously. Maybe you get your benefits right now from the resolution, but the other only can get his benefits after a while. I think you deserve to be trusted more important than trust others.

There are 3 necessary conditions to reach a win-win, like Prisoner's Dilemma, they are both rational people and both want to have a collusion, but they don’t trust each other, and of course they can’t reach a win-win situation. They only can choose to maximize their own payoffs.

In conclusion, not every zero-sum game can be converted into a win-win game. Here I apply these 3 points to sex game, let’s try to figure out how to analyze this game and find some possible resolutions.

1, they are intelligent and rational decision-makers. Males were, but females were not. So far women can’t figure out yet what intelligent and rational decision is for themselves in sex game, I think I can awaken women’s awareness sooner or later after I unlock the mystery of female orgasm to the public.

2, there are some benefits on each side they both want to exchange for. I think it is hard for every rational person, because orgasm is core interests for everyone as physiological needs, male or female both can’t give it up. Human nature is selfish, so this problem is really difficult to solve. Maybe you can do it by yourself, but I think it is not a permanent solution. Maybe you can pay to find a whore, but what if you want to orgasm with some one you love. There is only one way you two have to orgasm one by one.

3, trust each other in sex game. I think you two should trust each other, if you really love each other. Notice that the biggest obstacle between two people in love isn’t the trust problem, but a physiological response - refractory period. Frankly speaking, It is all by human nature and really hard to overcome.

2012年3月12日星期一

Mutual knowledge doesn’t imply common knowledge. Common knowledge is a statement about not only what I know, it is about what do I know the other person knows that I know that the other person …… and so on and so forth.

Current world, men and women don’t make common knowledge about orgasm to each other. Men only know what they know, and they don’t know what women know. It is not male fault, because the key point is women don’t know what they know. I think before we reach the Nash Equilibrium of sex between men and women, we should share the common knowledge about orgasm. First thing, women must figure out what they should know, and then can do the best response.

The women are always passive to sex, she prefer to stay still on bed and let the man in-out on her body, and wait an orgasm happens on herself suddenly by man’s effort, not by herself. In this way, women never can get an orgasm at all, don’t they never hear no pains, no gains. The second law of thermodynamics is also applicable to the sex game. In this game, orgasm like a shudder is as your last purpose, and you should have to make your efforts to make Mechanical energy →Internal energy →Nerve energy. This is a process of quantitative change to qualitative change, Nerve energy is an orgasm as final physiological release, and it is impossible that you got 100% energy convert into nerve energy, because some caloric must be lost, not being totally converted during this game. First thing for women, you should try to focus your Mechanical energy to your right organ in your sex activity which can convert it into Nerve energy.

2012年3月9日星期五

Lots of people know Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation.

An interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom (From Wiki).

Apparently from the pyramid, the first level consists of our physiological needs, including breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis and excretion in Maslow's theory.They are all the basic requirements for human survival. The point is Maslow believed that sex is also one of physiological needs at the first level, and all physiological needs are the most basic and strongest needs in the hierarchy because if a person is deprived of any of these, the person will die.

There is a paradox here. How do you explain lots of women don’t like sex and they think sex is a chore, if in Maslow theory sex is a really basic physiological need? You can’t give a reasonableexplanation for that under current theory of female sex research. Of course you can say that maybe Maslow got wrong, but as a male, I think Maslow really thought sex is a basic physiological need, not only for himself, but also for every male. You also can say maybe sex is a difference between males and females. I wonder to know why this difference happens only in sex not in other physiological needs. I think we can’t put sex on the first level, if there is a real difference between two genders, because the theory of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is proposed for entire human being including females. I think there is a possibility left, Maslow got 100% correct, and the problem really happens on female selves.

Frankly speaking, Maslow was not wrong, sex is a basic physiological need for human being, but women just didn’t figure something out yet. I think one day when the truth is opened to the public, women need a real sex more than having a so-called women’s day.

It is noteworthy that Maslow put the sexual intimacy at the third level, different from sex at the first level. From this point, we can see that Maslow thought love is love, sex is sex, and the two are different from each other.